Category Archives: Discrimination

Below is a list of the “racist facts” that I listed in a previous post.

Blacks Have Made Much Progress in Ameliorating Black Problems and Discrepancies

Yes, Blacks have closed the achievement gap by 1/3, which shows it was not purely genetic. However, 2/3 of the gap remains. Blacks in the UK have closed the achievement gap completely according to scores on the latest high school achievement tests.

Yes, the Black crime rate can go down and has gone down dramatically in the last 25 years. But that occurred at the same time as the crime rate for everyone dropping dramatically. It’s definitely true that you can have large swings in the Black crime rate. Black violent crime is down 40%. That wouldn’t be the case if it was all down to genes.

Nevertheless, crime reduction becomes an arms race as the White rate declines concurrently with the Black rate so the Black 8X discrepancy remains. Yes, there are Black societies in Africa with over 1 million members who have homicide rates as low as the Japanese. This shows that a high Black crime and violent crime is not a genetic inevitability. An excellent environment which does not occur naturally very often can wipe out the entire Black tendency towards crime and violence (and I believe it is a genetic tendency). The problem is that replicating these “superenvironments” seems to be quite difficult.

The Black IQ gap has closed significantly among Black children, among whom it has closed by 40%, and in places like Barbados and Bermuda, where it has closed by 50%. Nevertheless a significant gap remains. Blacks have closed the standardized test score gap in high school in the UK. Such scores can be seen as proxies for IQ.

The Black single parent rate was quite low in the 1950’s when 80% of Black children lived with a mother and father. So single parenthood is not a genetic inevitability.

There are wealthy Black areas like Baldwin Hills and Ladera Heights that reportedly have low crime rates. They are the opposite of rundown, slummy, blighted, dangerous Hellholes. Apparently if you get a lot of wealthy Blacks in one place, they can create a well-functioning metropolis.

However, in general, it seems that not a whole lot can be done to ameliorate the Black problems and discrepancies below. This is why most of the people talking about such things resort to extreme solutions such as bringing back Jim Crow and legal discrimination or forming a separate White state. They advocate such extreme solutions because those are the only real ways to deal with the problems below. The problem here is that the solution is immoral. Immoral solutions are not acceptable no matter the problem.

Why Bother Writing about “Racist Facts?”

If there’s no solution, and if writing about this just gets me called racist, makes Blacks and liberals hate me, and stimulates a lot of White racism, why bother to write about this stuff unless I want to use these facts as a stick to beat Black people with? See what I mean? That’s why I don’t bother to write about these things. There’s no way to fix them, and all writing about them does is cause a lot of bad vibes, exacerbate hostility and racism in society, and make even more people hate me. Why do it?

Bad Arguments Used by the Left to Counter “Racist Facts”

Nevertheless, the Left still has no arguments or very poor arguments for all of the facts below. I would like to point out first of all that the Left gets away with calling all of the above facts racist because they say they are lies.

Even things like “Black schools tend to perform more poorly,” they will say is a lie because it’s a generalization. They will say, “Lots of Black students do very well in school, so that’s a racist lie!” I would like to point out first of all that the Left gets away with calling all of the above facts racist because they say they are lies. Even things like “Black schools tend to perform more poorly” they will say is a lie because it’s a generalization. They will say, “Lots of Black students do very well in school, so that’s a racist lie!” The rest of them, they will just say they are not true.

I will list the previously stated facts below along with the bad arguments that liberals use to try to refute them. I would like to point out that all of these liberal rejoinders are very bad arguments. All are illogical or do not even attempt to counter the original statement. And in general, they rely in a huge way on all sorts of logical fallacies.

Black people are less intelligent than Whites as measured accurately by IQ tests. They will say that’s a lie.

Black people impose considerable costs on society. They will say that’s a lie. White people impose costs on society too, so therefore the statement is a lie.

Your average Hispanic has an IQ of 90. They will say that’s a lie.

Blacks commit 8X more crime than Whites. They will either say that’s a lie, or it’s due to poverty (which means it’s still true) or that Whites commit just as much crime except they commit corporate crime.

Blacks are 13% of the population but commit over half the violent crime. They will say that’s a lie, or resort to the poverty non-argument, or talk about Whites and corporate crime, imperialism, or White historical crimes like settler-colonialism or slavery.

Large cities with high percentages of Black people tend to be slummy, dangerous, rundown, blighted hellholes. They will ask you to define those terms, say there are nice areas in all of those cities, say it is due to discrimination (which means it’s still a fact), or say White cities are slummy too.

Blacks tend to be more impulsive than Whites. They will say that’s a lie and demand evidence. Never mind the candy bar test originally done in the Caribbean and now replicated ~15 times.

80% of Black kids are born to a single mother. They will say that’s because of racism or because Whites took all the jobs away.

Many Black men do not stick around and take care of their children. Same thing. Racism makes them do it, or Whites stole all the jobs.

Most prison rape is Black on White. Almost none is the other way around. They will say it’s a lie and demand proof. Or they will bring up some weird case of a White raping a Black and say it’s a lie because Whites rape Blacks too.

Blacks have quite high rates of STD’s. They will say Whites get STD’s too or it’s due to poverty or racism (which means it’s still true).

Heavily Black schools tend to perform poorly. First they will say it’s not true, then they will say it’s due to poverty and racism.

Blacks tend to be poorer than Whites at postponing instant gratification. See the candy bar studies. Liberals reject all of these studies as flawed even though they have been replicated 15 times.

One of the main reasons so many Blacks get shot by police is because they commit so much crime. They will say that Whites commit crime too.

Black people tend to be louder than White people. They will say that Whites are loud too and bring up some example of loud White people.

Believe it or not, all of the answers said that if a country’s population was 100% gay, that would be absolutely wonderful! I’m sure having all the population of your country gay would be the greatest thing since sliced bread! What the Hell’s the matter with people? It would be catastrophic for any country to be 100% gay, though we’re probably headed that way in the US at the rate we’re going here.

How could having 100% of the population of your country gay possibly be a good thing!? Color me mystified.

A given population as in for a country? 3%. That’s the percentage in the US, and it’s just fine by me.

Understand that homosexuality is bad for society in the sense that it causes a lot of costly problems for society. Furthermore, taxes paid by gays do not make up for the costs that society incurs from homosexuals.

Homosexuals live 20 years less than heterosexuals. This is horribly sad for gay people that they miss out on so many years of wonderful life, but it seems to me that reduced lifespan is costly to society.

Gays have higher rates of mood and anxiety disorders. While this causes a lot of suffering to gay people, and this is sad, at the same time, mental illness is costly to society.

Gays have much higher rates of drinking, smoking, and drug abuse than straights. The gay male party and play, scene revolving heavily around methamphetamine and club drugs is particularly alarming. Lesbians in particular smoke a lot. The costs of drinking, smoking, and drug abuse to gays themselves are no doubt significant in terms of disease, mortality, and the suffering that can come from excessive substance abuse, nevertheless, this incurs a lot of costs to society.

Gay men obviously have a very high STD rate. At 20% infection rate, the HIV rate is especially alarming. Most of these diseases remain confined to the gay community and have not broken out significantly to the straight community, with the exception of the Black community with all the down low men. But the great heterosexual HIV epidemic spreading from gays to straights never occurred mostly because HIV goes from men to women and then it stops, as spokesmen from the New York Department of Public Health said as early as the 1980’s. That’s not completely true, but it is very hard to get HIV from a woman. Hepatitis A, B, and C are or were very common in the gay community, vastly more common than among heterosexuals, most of whom only acquire B and C from IV drug use. Parasitical diseases such as shigella, ameobiasis and giardiasis are also extremely common among gay men, whereas they are quite rare among straights. In recent syphilis epidemics, up to 85% of cases are among gay men. Syphilis is quite uncommon among straights. Gay men have elevated rates of anal cancer, and the rate is rising. The rate is vastly higher than the rate among straights.I would like to point out that it is gay men themselves who suffer most from these diseases, and this suffering, although self-imposed, is often tragic, horrifying and heartbreaking in particularly in the heart-wrenching case of HIV. Lesbians have very low rates of STD’s but higher rates of breast cancer. I doubt if lesbians impose a disease burden on society. The very high gay male STD rate, in particular the HIV rate, obviously imposes considerable costs to society.

Tragically, gay men have a suicide rate 3X higher than straight men, even in San Francisco, the most gay-friendly place in the US. The attempted suicide rate is also very high. Gay male teenagers have a tragically very high attempted suicide rate at 8X the normal rate. Suicidal behavior causes unfathomable and heartbreaking suffering on gay men. However, attempted and completed suicides impose considerable cost on society.

Domestic violence rates are very high in gay and lesbian couples, especially the latter. A gay man is much more likely to beat his partner than a straight man is. A woman is much less likely to be beaten by a male partner than by a female partner. This causes immense suffering to the partners of gay and lesbian batterers. In addition, domestic violence is costly to society.

In gay areas, gay men typically take over all of the public restrooms and turn them into miniature sex clubs. This renders most public restrooms unusable by the rest of us. Most gay men typically vociferously support the use of public restrooms as sex dens for gays. I don’t have much sympathy here. Gay men are simply being very irresponsible with this depraved mindset. Further, this is a cost to society.

It is first of all most important to point out that gay men themselves suffer worst from most from these largely self-imposed conditions, a suffering so profound that it almost moves you to tears. Compassion is essential. Nevertheless, there is a cost to society. Some of these issues may be caused by discrimination (see the high teenage gay male attempted suicide rate), but there is a cost to society no matter what causes it. Some of these problems would lessen with increased acceptance of gays, but others would linger or possibly even worsen.

The question comes up whether gays pay for the costs they bring to society. Many gays seem to have above average intelligence for some reason, especially gay men. Gays seem more artistically talented than straights. More gays than straights seem to get college degrees, in particular gay men.

Gay men seem to earn higher than average wages and are disproportionately employed in high paying and prestigious professions. I am always hearing about a homosexual, often a gay man, who is contributing something noteworthy and exemplary to our society such that it mentions a media notice. Obviously, gay men contribute more to the tax base per capita than straights. So gays, especially gay men, offer considerable benefits to society, not flowing from their homosexuality but from other aspects of their lives.

I have not discussed lesbians here because I know little about them, but I doubt that they impose serious costs on society other than reduced lifespan.

However the question rises whether gays pay for themselves. Despite their excellent contributions to society and their higher than normal tax contributions, I still do not think that homosexuals pay for themselves.

The question then arises about whether the rest of us should be willing to carry a small burden for our gay brothers.

Personally I feel that at 3%, I am willing to shoulder the costs of homosexuals to society, as the numbers are so small that it is something we can cope with. I would be willing to tolerate up to 6% gay men in society. I think we could deal at that rate.

However, if the rate of male homosexuality went higher than that, all of these problems above would increase in scope with attendant costs.

Honestly, even when you get to 10% gay men in any country, your problems are going to go up a lot. The % of gay men in New York and San Francisco is quite high, and they definitely impose considerable costs on these cities.

Once you start heading up to 15–20% of any country’s population being gay, I think it would be unsustainable for many reasons (see above).

Homosexuality in society seems to be one of those things, like many things in life, that is best in small doses.

I don’t have a high opinion of this reactionary idiot Tony Perkins. While the label of bigot and hater seems correct about him, unfortunately a number of things he says about homosexuality are flat out true. Others are ugly opinions, exaggerations, silliness, or untruths.

The dossier against Perkins can be found here at the site of one of the worst SJW organizations out there, the toxic and cancerous Southern Poverty Law Center. Let’s look at the charges:

contending that gay rights advocates intend to round up Christians in “boxcars.”

False. OK, that’s fanaticism.

But sometimes I wonder what sort of SJW dictatorship our SJW commissar overlords would have in store for us if they ever seized power. Looking at how hate-filled, vindictive, and out and out vicious your typical gay rights homosexual is nowadays, it’s not unreasonable to fear all sorts of bad things from these maniacs.

To give you an example, these gay activists absolutely hate me although I have supported gay rights since the 1980’s when it was dangerous to do so. That’s a good 35 years. And I work on their political campaigns, though I should probably quit based on how they treat me.

In order to be a proper gay rights ally and avoid being a homophobe, the goalposts have now been moved to positions that are so far beyond the endzone that most straight men would qualify as homophobes by default simply for having the normal opinions that straight men have towards male homosexuality (hint: they have a very low opinion of it).

“What most people either don’t realize or willfully ignore is that only 16 percent of Islam is a religion — the rest is a combination of military, judicial, economic, and political system. Christianity, by comparison, isn’t a judicial or economic code — but a faith. So to suggest that we would be imposing some sort of religious test on Muslims is inaccurate. Sharia is not a religion in the context of the First Amendment.”

— FRC email, December 2015

True. That’s probably about right, sorry.

“Those who practice Islam in its entirety, it’s not just a religion. It’s an economic system, it’s a judicial system, and it is a military – a military system. And it is – it has Shariah law that you’ve heard about and those things will tear and destroy the fabric of a democracy. So we have to be very clear about our laws and restrain those things that would harm the whole. We are a nation – let me be very clear about this. We are a nation that was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, that’s the foundation of our nation, not Islam, but the Judeo-Christian God.”

— Washington Watch radio show, September 2014

Mostly true. He’s wrong as usual about the Founding Fathers, who were more deists than anything else, but this is standard fundie nonsense.

The rest about Islam is more or less 100% fact.

“The videos are titled ‘It Gets Better.’ They are aimed at persuading kids that although they’ll face struggles and perhaps bullying for ‘coming out’ as homosexual (or transgendered or some other perversion), life will get better. … It’s disgusting. And it’s part of a concerted effort to persuade kids that homosexuality is okay and actually to recruit them into that lifestyle.”

—FRC fundraising letter, August 2011

False. The It Gets Better videos are not part of a project to recruit kids into the gay lifestyle. I doubt if they are trying to tell kids homosexuality is ok either. These videos are aimed at gay teenagers who are distraught, depressed, and have a high attempted suicide rate, showing them that no matter how much they are suffering now, things will get better as they get older.

It’s probably not true that gays cannot turn straights gay, but many straight women have chosen a bisexual orientation, and many straight men have chosen to engage in bisexual behavior, with more and more doing this all the time. And while you can’t turn straight people gay, that doesn’t stop gay and bisexual men from trying.

I can’t count how many times they have tried to seduce me, and they’ve done it to a lot of my friends too. Actually bisexual men are far worse about this because I don’t have much to do with gay men, and bisexual men are everywhere running about in typical straight society. They can get pretty verbally coercive and cajoling about trying to get you to join in their faggy fun too. You need to stop talking to them because they will never stop trying to cajole you into their faggy fun and games.

“Those who understand the homosexual community – the activists – they’re very aggressive, they’re – everything they accuse us of they are in triplicate. They’re intolerant, they’re hateful, vile, they’re spiteful. …. To me, that is the height of hatred, to be silent when we know there are individuals that are engaged in activity, behavior, and an agenda that will destroy them and our nation.”

—Speaking to the Oak Initiative Summit, April 2011

True. This is actually true. Gay activists are out and out ugly. In fact, I am starting hate gay men (though I should not feel that way, I know) due to so many nasty and ugly interactions with them. I will continue to support them politically of course, but the less I deal with them otherwise, the better. Gay men nowadays are the worst SJW’s of them all, like SJW’s on steroids.

False. But I really doubt if homosexuality is going to destroy the country. That’s a bit much.

“While activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. … It is a homosexual problem.”

— FRC website, 2010

True. This is a bit vicious, but gay men are vastly overrepresented among pedophiles. 35% of child molestations are molestations of boys by men. Almost all of these men are homosexual pedophiles.

False. But saying that pedophilia is a gay problem is just wrong. And it’s vicious.

The marriage debate “is literally about the entire culture: it’s about the rule of law, it’s about the country, it’s about our future, it’s about redefining the curriculum in our schools, it’s about driving a wedge between parent and child, it’s about the loss of religious freedom, it’s about the inability to be who we are as a people.”

— The Janet Mefford Show, May 22, 2014

False. None of this is true, but I can see why these Christians are upset about it. They say it goes against their religion. Well, OK. So how do you expect them to act?

Part of the FRC’s strategy is to tout the false claim that gay men are more likely to sexually abuse children. The American Psychological Association, among others, has concluded that, “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.”

True. Yes, and the APA is flat out wrong and is disregarding all of the evidence of psychological “science” on this issue. You wonder why people say the social science are not sciences. Well, look no further. Actually gay men are 12 times more likely to molest children than straight men are.

Nevertheless, most gay men are obviously not pedophiles.

As the show ended, Perkins stated, “If you look at the American College of Pediatricians, they say the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a danger to children.

False. I do not think it is fair to say that homosexuals pose a risk to our children. “Keep the faggots away from our kids!” seems like a mean and unnecessary thing to say.

In late 2010, Perkins held a webcast to discuss the dire consequences of allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military. Dubious statistics from a poll commissioned by the FRC and the Center for Security Policy – which was named an anti-Muslim hate group in 2015 – were used during the webcast.

The webcast also mentioned the FRC report, Mission Compromised, written by retired Army Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, the FRC’s senior fellow for national security. The report contended that allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly would undermine morale and discipline and infringe on the religious freedom of military chaplains, who would be forced to accept homosexuality and would no longer be permitted to express their religious beliefs about it.

In addition, Maginnis predicted that heterosexual service members would be forced to take “sensitivity classes” that promote the “homosexual lifestyle.” He added: “Homosexual activists seek to force the U.S. military to embrace their radical views and sexual conduct, no matter the consequences for combat effectiveness.”

False. I believe that gays are now serving openly in the US military, and this has not affected combat effectiveness like the howlers predicted.

On Oct. 11, 2010, The Washington Post published a commentary by Perkins in which he repeated his argument that anti-bullying policies are not really intended to protect students. “Homosexual activist groups like GLSEN [Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network] … are exploiting these tragedies to push their agenda of demanding not only tolerance of homosexual individuals, but active affirmation of homosexual conduct and their efforts to redefine the family.”

Half true. Sadly, this is correct. Gay activists are indeed using the anti-bullying push to promote tolerance of homosexuals, to redefine the family, and worse, to promote out and out affirmation of homosexuality.

In fact, I would argue that it goes far beyond that, and that presently gay rights activists are promoting the open celebration of homosexuality. As a straight man, I fail to see why I should jump up and down and cheer for homosexuality. What’s so great about it? Who needs it? If it disappeared from the planet tomorrow, would that be a bad thing? It probably would not, as homosexuality offers zero benefits to society while causing a long list of societal problems.

However, obviously the anti-bullying movement is also designed to protect gay students.

In 2013, Perkins claimed on CNN that allowing gay people into the Boy Scouts would put children in danger of sexual assault. When pressed by the CNN host, Perkins again resorted to the FRC’s stock claim, as Perkins once put it, that pedophilia “is a homosexual problem.” “They [Boy Scouts] are trying to create an environment that is protective of children,” he said. “This [allowing LGBT Scouts and Scout leaders] doesn’t make it more protective. There is a disproportionate number of male on boy – when we get on pedophilia, male on boy is a higher incident rate of that.”

True. Well, of course letting gay men by scoutmasters puts boys at increased risk of molestation. Isn’t that obvious? There have been plenty of closeted gay men who were scoutmasters in the past, and they molested more than a few boys. Why do you think the Scouts had the ban in the first place? Because this was a well known long-standing problem in scouting! It was hard enough to try to sort out the closet cases among the scoutmasters, and the new policy was going to flood scouts with a lot more gay scoutmasters. Just what the Scouts need.

Despite gains made for LGBT equality, Perkins and the FRC have continued their anti-gay activities, including opposition to the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). According to Perkins, President Obama was working with the “totalitarian homosexual lobby” to sneak ENDA into law and should that happen, freedom of religion will be “destroyed.”

Opinion. Well, you know, this is just wrong. In general, I think that it should be illegal to discriminate against homosexuals in housing, employment, etc. simply for being homosexuals.

But we ought to be able to discriminate on other grounds. For instance, suppose a flamboyantly gay man applies at my store to be a customer clerk. My clientele is mostly straight men, a lot of whom are macho rednecks who will not take kindly to a screaming faggot asking, “Can I help you?” In this case, I might be able to hire a gay man if he was straight acting and promised to be quiet about his orientation so as not to scare off my clientele.

Suppose you have a restaurant. The hosts are people who greet customers and show them their seats. I have a right to turn down a flamboyant homosexual who wants to work as a host because he will scare off my diners. Instead, I would happy to employ him in a backroom somewhere, but he can’t be out there greeting diners.

Other than these minor cases though, I think gays should have the same employment and housing rights as members of racial groups or the two genders.

Perkins also has worked to keep America safe from Betty Crocker. In September 2013, he called for a boycott of the iconic brand because General Mills, which produces it, donated custom cakes to three LGBT couples in Minnesota who were married after the state legalized same-sex marriage a month earlier.

Opinion. Wow. Ugly.

In 2015, as the FRC tilted into anti-Muslim sentiment – especially with the hiring of retired Lt. General William “Jerry” Boykin – Perkins said that Islam is such a danger that Muslim Americans should not have the same religious freedoms as other citizens.

Opinion. Not sure what he means by this, but this is ugly.

After a man with radical Islamic beliefs fatally shot 49 people at an Orlando LGBT nightclub in June 2016, Perkins pointed the finger at the Obama Administration – claiming that the administration marginalized Christians and elevated Islam. “We have to deal with the underlying issue, which is an ideology that’s incompatible with American liberty,” Perkins wrote. “An ideology, tragically, that this administration has empowered through its public policy and private diplomacy.”

False. Yuck. The problem here is that this attack had nothing to with Islam. The attacker himself was a gay man, so he was not killing gay men out of hatred or bigotry. Instead, he had had an affair with a Puerto Rican gay man who he met at that bar, and that man had given him HIV. This was a Puerto Rican gay bar. So he decided to take revenge against Puerto Rican gay men in general by shooting up the bar.

In a 2016 FRC email to followers about the issue, Perkins warned: “If government can force the ‘normalization’ or even the celebration of something as universally unnatural as men using women’s restrooms and vice versa, then it can force the rest of its agenda on the American people very easily,” resulting in “social chaos” and the breakdown of all “sexual inhibition and morality.”

False. I doubt if that’s going to happen, but at 60, I would love to see sexual inhibition and morality break down a lot more. Perhaps I would get more dates.

During 2016, Perkins was part of the Republican committee as a delegate from Louisiana that created the GOP platform.

Perkins reportedly proposed a plank that supported conversion therapy for minors, though the wording, apparently revised from the original, does not specifically mention conversion therapy – a pseudoscientific practice that claims to change a person’s sexual orientation from gay to straight, and has been denounced by every major U.S. medical and mental health association. The platform committee ultimately passed a resolution affirming “the right of parents to determine the proper treatment or therapy, for their minor children.”

Opinion. Conversion therapy is a controversial issue, and in general it does not seem to work, although it is proven that sex surrogacy can help some lesbians to enjoy sex with men.

After Trump’s election, the FRC and Perkins were heavily involved in the formation of policy for the new administration. FRC Senior Fellow Kenneth Blackwell was named the head of domestic policy for the transition team. The FRC also took steps to ensure the new administration would undo President Obama’s work advancing LGBT equality – efforts that come after Perkins’ June 2016 claim that a Trump presidency would be better for the LGBT community than a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Jynxi: I’m glad you cleared that up because that was exactly my conclusion. That being said, how would you go about classifying homosexuality? Would it not be a type of BDD light?

Homosexuality is not a sin and it’s not chosen anyway. I am not much of a Christian, but it seems hard to figure out if it is a sin considering that God obviously made these people gay.

Homosexuality itself is not a mental disorder. Just because a man is turned on by men and not women or a woman is turned on by women and not men doesn’t mean that that man or woman is crazy. It’s not nuts or crazy to have a sexual preference for your own sex and not the opposite sex.

And it makes no sense to call the whole homosexual syndrome a mental illness because many gay men and possibly lesbians are extremely healthy psychologically. You can’t have mental disorders where the sufferers are very well-adjusted and mentally healthy. That goes against the definition of a disorder.

Nevertheless, both male homosexuality and lesbianism, while not being mental illnesses, still resemble them. In other words, homosexuality is not a mental illness, but it looks like one! This is because there is so much pathology that seems to go along inevitably with these orientations when you look at them as groups.

The PC claim is that all homosexual pathologies are due to discrimination. However, recent surveys have found high levels of all sorts of pathologies in both gays and lesbians even in places like Sweden and most recently in the Netherlands. Gays are more accepted there than anywhere on Earth, so the gays can’t use the discrimination excuse which they always use to handwave away all gay and lesbian pathology.

Male homosexuality and lesbianism on average cut a full 20 years off your lifespan. The most recent studies showing a 20 year lifespan reduction have come out of Sweden, Denmark and Canada. Gays also say that the 20 year reduced lifespan is due to discrimination, but this is hard to reckon with in places like Sweden and Denmark where there is little discrimination against gays. Gay men who die of non-HIV causes only live a few years longer than those who die of HIV, and lesbians who are not affected by HIV don’t live any longer than gay men.

The implication is that all of the pathologies and the reduced lifespan are simply inherent aspects of this homosexual syndrome when look at the groups as a whole. There is something inherent in homosexuality in many cases that causes you to be unhappy, have all sorts of problems and die young.

However, if you believe in Natural Law, homosexuality seems to be violation of Natural Law. Obviously nature wants men and women to pair off and make babies. When that gets messed up as in women raising children alone or homosexual couples raising children, all sorts of problems seem to develop. The children have quite a few more problems than those raised by a father and mother.

A household with a father and a mother continues to be the best for children. This doesn’t really make sense unless you think that possibly Nature wants it this way, or perhaps we have evolved to raise children this way. If the latter, we might not be adapted to raising children in other ways very well.

Homosexual relationships both gay and lesbian seem to run into all sorts of problems. First of all, they usually end up caricaturing heterosexual relationships with one playing the dominant and masculine man and another the submissive and feminine woman in both gay male and lesbian relationships. That even gays end up caricaturing the basic heterosexual pattern implies once again that this is either Natural Law or we have evolved that way (possibly “Natural Law” might mean nothing other than the way we have evolved).

Gay relationships seem almost inherently pathological. They do not seem to last long. 91% of even lesbians never have a relationship that lasts more than five years, and gay men are even worse. Hell, even I did better than that. Gay male couples are 4-5 X more likely to suffer from domestic violence than straight couples are. Lesbians beat each other up so often and so badly that their rates are off charts, worse than even gay men’s rates.

Lesbians often fall into what is called Lesbian Bed Death where they have sex once a month if that often. No one knows why this happens, but perhaps lesbian relationships lack the male “charge” that may be necessary to fire up female sexuality. Lesbians try to imitate the charge by having one woman play the male role, but maybe it doesn’t work.

Gay men typically have notoriously unstable relationships which are much more temporary even than those of lesbians. Gay male life often revolves around a never-ending swirl of temporary and often one-time or even anonymous relationships. A survey out of Australia in 2000 showed that many gay men were continuing to have sex with more than 100 men per year. And this is long after the wild promiscuity of the 1970’s that preceded the HIV epidemic calmed down to much lower levels in the 1980’s. Even at this late date, gay men are very promiscuous.

All of this wild sex for some reason does not seem to make them happy and in fact it may make them unhappy. Many gay men seem to be caught in this never ending drug and promiscuous sex cycle in which they seem to be chasing an elusive happiness and fulfillment that they never seem to find.

Many gay men seem to be looking for a father figure. Gay men’s relationships with their fathers and male peers were typically quite poor, and it has been suggested that gay men are forever trying to fill the “father hole” that never got filled in them or are forever trying to find the male acceptance and brotherly love that they never got from their peers while growing up. Gay male culture revolves heavily around the notion of the “Daddy,” and many gay male relationships incorporate the “Daddy” archetype. A number of gay men have stated that a theme of their adult lives, particularly sexually, was a search, often wandering, painful, and yearning but ultimately fruitless, for the father relationship that they never had.

Neither gays nor lesbians seem very happy. Gay men have a 3X elevated rate of suicide even in the Netherlands, which is as gay-friendly as you can get. There seems to be something inherent in male homosexuality that causes this suicidality.

One can picture heterosexual relationships in the yin and yang figure. Take them apart and they float alone, missing their other half. Men and women only become completely whole in a heterosexual relationship where the male donates his masculine element to the woman which she incorporates into herself and the woman donates her female element into the male which he incorporates into himself. They are both now whole, locked together in that perfect fitting embrace, the key in the lock of the yin/yang emblem.

Look, I do not think that male homosexuality or lesbianism are lifestyles that gay men and lesbians choose to lead in most cases, although there are some women who seem to choose to be lesbians, and there are a few basically straight men who choose to live a gay lifestyle, but the numbers of the latter are very small.

By age 15, gay men cannot be changed to straight, and they cannot even be made somewhat more heterosexual or somewhat less homosexual. Male homosexuality is incurable, unfixable, or permanent, however you want to look at it.

In early onset cases, lesbianism appears to be quite permanent and incurable too. So almost all gay men and many lesbians are pretty much stuck being gay.

Still the lifestyles that especially so many gay men in big cities seem to live seem to be very unhealthy both physically and psychologically. In many cases the way they live is simply not a good way to live your life.

I don’t hate gays and lesbians. You can’t hate people for what they can’t help. I wish for all of them the very same happiness and health that I want for myself in life, not 1% less.

Nevertheless, I worry that all of this pathology may simply be somehow inherent in the “syndromes” of male homosexuality and lesbianism, possibly due to their violations of Natural Law or our evolution, and that these problems may never be fixed much.

There has been much talk about why the Democrats have lost so many seats all across the land. There are a variety of reasons for it, but the main reason is right up there in that ugly title of the post. We Democrats had the temerity and nerve to elect a Black man to President of the US. Can you imagine that? We actually elected a Black man! How outrageous.

The rest of the country looked at the Democrats in disgust and said, “I can’t believe you Democrats just elected a nigger President of the US! Just for that, I am voting Republican at the federal, state and local level! The nerve of you Democrats – electing a nigger! You thought you could do that and we would just sit here taking it sitting down – I don’t think so!”

There really is no other explanation for the Democrats’ loss of over 1,000 political positions countrywide since the election of Obama.

Part of the losses can be explained by increased voter fraud and rapidly declining democracy in the US, but even without those problems, we still would have lost seats due to real changes in opinion since 2008.

Fraud and the War on Democracy

I am not sure exactly why we lost all those seats but part of it has to do with the death of democracy in America.

The whole country is gerrymandered to Hell, and this right there has led to huge Republican gains. Once Republicans get into a state government, they start gerrymandering the state like maniacs.

The vote-stealing by computerized election machines that started in 2000 has continued and increased every year. They don’t just steal Presidencies. There is good evidence that they are stealing Senate seats as well and they stole at least three last year, one each in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and probably Missouri. The last election with Ossoff in Georgia was almost certainly stolen, so they are stealing House seats too. Republicans are doubling down on the election machines by refusing to remove the ones that are most easily hacked.

They have also passed a number of laws making vote recounts after elections difficult or even impossible. You saw how all of the 2016 recounts were shut down by Republican state governments and courts.

In addition, the Republican Supreme Court outrageously overturned the Voting Rights Act in one of the most racist decisions since Plessy v Ferguson. As a result of this wildly racist decision, Republicans all over the land have formulated all sorts of new election laws and rules that have the end effect of making it harder for Black and Brown minorities to vote.

In addition, in several elections this year, Democrats who were voted into office were actually removed from office by state legislatures in a move so profoundly anti-Democratic it is frightening.

The attacks on democracy across the land by Republicans are vicious and ugly. They are some of the worst we have seen since 1964 before which Blacks could hardly even vote in the US.

Given all of these wildly anti-democratic actions, how anyone can say with a straight face that we live in a democracy anymore, I have no idea. The whole idea that this is some kind of a democratic country is some sort of a sick joke.

Actual Moves towards Conservatism in the Population

Nevertheless, polls do show a huge swing towards the Republican Party since 2008 when Obama was elected. As Obama was a mushy Centrist and most of us on the Left think he is just a Republican, it can hardly be because Obama was too liberal.

I assume that the Democratic Party was punished at all levels for the crime of electing a Black President. Basically, “This is what we Democrats get for electing a nigger.” It’s Johnson’s White House comments in 1965 after the Civil Rights Act all over again: “We will lose the South for the next generation.” Just like in 1964, we Democrats are being punished horribly for doing the right thing. We are being made to fall on our swords for the crime of supporting Black people.

The fact that Democrats were crushed all over the land after we elected a Democratic Black President to me shows just how profoundly racist this country still is. And it looks like the Republican Party is becoming the de facto party of resentful White racism, mostly anti-Black racism but to a lesser extent anti-Hispanic racism too.

This Drexel University professor has been removed from his post due to an onslaught of threats, including many death threats, that have been issued against him. Furthermore and appallingly, the university has launched an investigation into the “appropriateness” of Ciccriarello-Maher’s comments.

The Intercept, a liberal magazine associated with the Democratic Party, has a new article out bashing this professor. This article is starting to remind me of why I can’t stand liberals, especially liberal Democrats. They’re horrible. I’m not a liberal. I’m a radical. I’m a Leftist. I’m Hard Left! We don’t like liberals!

It says that this professor opposes free speech, and indeed he does.

George Ciccariello-Maher, a Drexel University associate professor of politics and global studies, is no fan of free speech.

He uses his Twitter account to rail against the American Civil Liberties Union and defenders of speech rights even for the most noxious of speakers. He has called for other individuals to be fired from their jobs for offensive speech. And he has blocked critics on Twitter — such as this reporter — who say his approach goes too far. (The blocking, in fact, is mutual.)

Ciccariello-Maher is explicit. “We don’t have to stand up for the free speech of eugenicists, racists, and bigots to speak and certainly not the privilege to have access to a platform on campus to spout their kind of hatred,” he said about his campaign to stop Charles Murray from speaking at a nearby campus, during a conversation on free speech on the It’s Going Down Podcast in May.

Fair enough. But this argument is flowing around a completely false view of the Constitution. Sadly the free speech nuts and radical libertarians have no understanding of what the First Amendment even says.

Now first of all, I am a free speech nut myself, and I am also a Ultra-radical Social Libertarian. Get the cops out of our lives! Cops butt out! Go catch the rapists and murderers and leave the rest of us alone!

I am also an almost complete free speech absolutist, although I am not opposed to blocking some speech, especially some forms of pornography.

The thing is, all of these arguments claiming that Antifa or SJW’s don’t believe in the First Amendment are flat out wrong. Antifa and the SJW’s do not have to abide by the First Amendment! You know why? The First Amendment doesn’t apply to them!

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech only in the sense that the government may not infringe on freedom of speech. That is the government cannot shut down speech it does not like or imprison people for saying things that the government doesn’t like. The First Amendment doesn’t even apply to all the rest of us! We are free to try to shut down any speech we don’t like anytime we want to! We are not in violation of the First Amendment or even anti-First Amendment because the First doesn’t even apply to us in the first place! Now, if we start arguing that the state itself should ban certain expressions of speech or imprison those saying things we do not like, yes, we are now anti-First Amendment.

Really the Antifa are simply expressing their own freedom of speech. They see the people they are attacking as fascists, and their attitude is “no platform for fascists” – in other words, they are going to try to shut down fascist speech anywhere it rears its head. Yes, the Rightists may attempt to speak as the state gives them the right to do, but the Antifa or anyone else can use their freedom of speech to try to shout down the Rightists and use their freedom of assembly to try to shut down the Rightists’ speech in the first place and keep it from happening.

I just found out that prejudice means “dislike for a group of people.” This typically means a racial, ethnic, religious, gender, sexual orientation or sexual identity. Prejudice usually means bigotry of some sort, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, sectarianism, and various forms of ethnic hatred.

For the life of me, I cannot see what on Earth is wrong with not liking some group of people. However, I would argue that this should be limited to dislike, it should not be obsessive and it should not be the sort of hot or cold hatred that hurts a lot of people.

This boils down to a basic limitation of freedom. Saying that prejudice is illegal or immoral or bad in some way is automatically an abrogation of human freedom. Obviously, we don’t have to like anyone. Isn’t that clear? Obviously, we can dislike anyone we want to, for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all. That is our right as a free citizen.

We have a right to our preferences. We have a right to have a preference for one particular group or a preference to not associate with some other particular group, although I would hope it would be phrased as,

“You know, I just don’t care to associate with [X group]. I wish them all the best and will work for equal rights for them because as humans they deserve it, but as far as I am concerned, it’s them over there and me over here. I simply prefer not to be around them too much and I do not wish to befriend them. If I have to deal with them, I will be as polite and friendly as possible, but I do not wish to take things any further than that.”

What in God’s name is wrong with such a mindset? Now obviously you cannot incorporate it into law. You cannot use your preferences to discriminate against certain groups in housing, employment, voting rights, etc. (even though such discrimination is rampant even now and is even officially sanctioned by a political party called the Republican Party). Sure, you can’t discriminate. But you don’t have to be friends with anyone. You don’t have to make the acquaintance of anyone. You don’t have to hang around with or associate with anyone.

I happen to have a certain dislike for some groups of people.

I am not wild about gay men, though I have a few online gay friends who I am very fond of. Friendships between gay and straight men are impossible in my book and fail every single time. How do I know this? Personal experience. I have also had a lifetime of bad experiences with gay men, and I just do not wish to deal with them anymore. I’ve had enough of gay men for one lifetime.

On their other hand, I support full rights for them, and I even work on their political campaigns! I support most of their political causes and in general think it should not be legal to discriminate against them.

But it’s still them over there, me over here, and never the twain shall meet. In my life, almost all straight men I have known have had little or nothing to do with gay men. I cannot think of anything more bizarre than straight men have gay friends, and the men I have known who befriended gay men almost always reported a catastrophic experience, bearing out my concerns. But then, I am Old School.

I don’t like Gypsies very much. In fact, I do not like them at all. I don’t hate them because they are not worth wasting my energy hating. I have met five Gypsies in my life. Four of them stole from me, and one just got out or jail. All were female. Based on that, I do not wish to meet anymore Gypsies in this lifetime.

I’ve met plenty enough Gypsies for one life. As far as racism against Gypsies, it’s not something we deal with in the US, so it’s not an issue. It’s a nonexistent problem, so I have no opinion about it.

I don’t like Nigerians or Africans period very much, especially West Africans. I am done with them. Almost every African I met on the Net behaved horribly, and almost all of them tried to steal from either me or my friends.

We had a Yahoo group once and we let a lot of Africans, mostly Nigerians, into the group.

All except for one or two tried to steal from us.

A few others were trying to scam a White wife so they could get into the US. We called them wife-scammers and considered them to be about as low as the thieves.

The rest of them were always trying to chat with the women in our group. When the women would go talk to them, these men would have their cams on and would always be jerking their big Black cocks at these women, almost always White women. A number of our women got very upset by this, and some were out and out traumatized.

We threw almost all of them out of the group for stealing or trying to steal, wife scamming, and flashing and jerking off at our women without permission. We then put in a totally racist and discriminatory rule banning all Africans from joining the group. We got accused of racism for this, and a lot of group members defected to go hang out with those wonderful Africans.

I suppose you think that because I am not fond of Africans, I dislike Black Americans. Actually, I have no particular opinion about Black Americans, and mostly I try to just not think about them, which I think is best. This is one group of Americans that I would say the less you think about them, the better.

Yes, we banned Africans from our group, but we also had a lot of Black Americans, men and women, in the group. Only one was banned, and he deserved it. The African ban did not apply to American Blacks. Why? Because they were not doing any of the things the Africans were doing! They were not stealing from us, wife scamming or jerking their dicks at our women.

In fact, the behavior of the US Blacks in our group was orders of magnitude better than the Africans! It was almost like we were dealing with two completely different races of people. This is why I think it is wrong to lump US Blacks in with Africans. Behaviorally, they are dramatically different, and US Blacks are much better behaved than Africans. I am not sure why this is, but I have some theories. As you can see, theories of genetic race and behavior do not make much sense here, as US Black genes are not much different from African genes. What’s different? How about culture? How about 400 years of exposure to White culture here in the US?

I don’t have any particular preferences about any other groups of people, although to be completely honest, I suppose I am most comfortable with my own White people. I know that I am most comfortable with White women. I think it is just that they are most similar to me in many different ways. Also White women are far more likely to like me and want to get involved with me than are women of any other race. Why that is, I have no idea, but perhaps when it comes to dating and relationships, a lot of people simply prefer their own kind.

Which brings me to another type of preference. Why in God’s name can we not have racial or any other type of preferences when it comes to dating!? So you don’t want to date Catholics, or Arabs, or bisexuals, or transwomen, or Gypsies, or Gentiles, or atheists, or Nigerians, or, Hell, Midwesterners, or redheads, or people with blue eyes, or Republicans, or insurance salesmen, or banksters, or…anything or anyone for any reason or no reason?

I cannot think of anything more personal than dating, relationships, love, sexual behaviors, intimacy, and sex itself. The idea that we cannot have preferences or even actively discriminate in this area is absolutely insane, but we are starting to hear this now from the Cultural Left.

Apparently we men have no right to discriminate against transwomen in dating. As for me, sorry, I don’t date trannies. Real women are enough of a headache, believe me. I don’t need to deal with some chick who used to be a dude, sorry, I’m out as far as that goes.

Apparently, we White men are no longer allowed to say we prefer not to date Black women. We also cannot say that we do not find Black women attractive (a common belief among White men). I guess we have no right to have standards when it comes to attraction! The Cultural Left now says it is always racist for a White man to prefer not to date Black women, and it is always racist if a White man says he is not attracted to Black women.

I keep telling you that these Cultural Left freaks keep getting crazier every year. I think they are on some runaway Crazy Train. Apparently the nature of the Cultural Left is to get weirder and crazier every year, continually upping the ante and making more and more extreme demands. We meet a few of their nutty demands, and they don’t even bother to say thanks before they move the goalposts again and start making new even nuttier demands. It’s like a football field that stretches far off into the horizon with no end in sight.

Rambo: Saw you’re 10-6-17 post regarding some guy calling you a racist. Left the first comment about that. P.S. I happen to be a Black guy.

The real hardcore nasty racism against Black people bothers me. I do not mean just words and whatnot, but ugly words are still gnarly. It’s hard to argue that you’re not racist against Blacks when you care calling them niggers all the time like so many of these Alt Right types do. Used in a certain way, that is a very cruel word to use against Black people. It is nearly a slap in the face. It’s literally a fighting word.

Real discrimination against Blacks bothers me too. I am against discrimination! However, I would argue that disparate impact has to go, and affirmative action is not the way to deal with discrimination.

I am outraged at the way Blacks are having their right to vote taken away from them. It’s like we are back to Jim Crow.

It’s little known, but the Housing Rights Act is barely enforced at all. It’s a great law, the last of the great civil rights laws of the Second Liberation, but it’s toothless a lot of the time. They do have investigators they send out, and it is pretty simple to pick up discrimination, but they get constant budget cuts, especially when Republicans came in. Trump put this silly Tom named Ben Carson in charge of HUD, and one of the first things this House Negro said was that he would not enforce the Housing Rights Act.

Job discrimination has declined dramatically, but it’s still out there. Promotion discrimination is actually a more serious problem. The EEOC generally has good resources to fight this, and they do all the time. Good for them. The lawwuits are generally not abusive (though the disparate impact ones are) and most of the time, they are filing suit against some nasty policies.

Trump’s softer racism is starting to bother me too. When there are multiple people doing something he doesn’t like, he singles out the Black man and goes after him. And he seems to single out Blacks for attacks based on their behavior. This NFL flap feels racist to me. He just can’t resist any opportunity to bash Blacks. I think he is trying to win points with his racist base this way.

It is sickening that Jeff Sessions is now Attorney General. This is one nasty, ugly, old cracker White man from the South. He’s an unreconstructed Jim Crow type racist. His racism is raw and unmasked. They put this anti-Black racist cracker in charge of enforcing the laws of this land! Outrageous!

The modern antiracist movement of which many Blacks are a part of has gone completely bonkers and off the deep end. They have taken things way too far, and all they are doing is making people mad. Plus they are fighting for some very dubious things. Even worse, they are driving some formerly sympathetic Whites over to the overt racist side as the logic of the crazy debate is that you are with either the CRT kooks or the nasty racists, and there’s no middle ground. You have to side with one idiot or the other. It’s a game of Pick Your Fool.

But the correct response to the craziness and stupidity and even wicked folly of modern anti-racism is not be become a racist in response. The correct response is to say the Hell with the CRT Cultural Left antiracists and the Hell with the real racists too!

There’s nothing wrong with antiracism or better yet, nonracism. I like the word nonracism better than antiracism, as the modern version has poisoned the word to where it’s not even a good thing any more. Further, antiracism seems to mean that one must be consumed with a constant war against racism wherever it rears its ugly head. I don’t agree with that. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I have better things to do than to use up all my energy battling racist assholes.

Racism will never go away anyway, so in that sense the modern antiracists are either attacking windmills with spears, or worse, racism has become their very own White Whale. The best response is probably to line up with neither the antiracists nor the racist bastards and instead to simply drop out of the war. That doesn’t mean refusing to take a side. It means trying not to be racist yourself and opposing real racism at least in your mind while somewhat dropping out of the interminable war against the racist Leviathan.

But most of the principles of original Civil Rights Movement of Rosa Parks, the Little Rock Seven, James Meredith, SNCC, Martin and even late Malcolm are righteous things, and those values are still very much worth holding. The Alt Left in general upholds the values of the early Civil Rights Movement or what we call the Second Liberation, with a couple of exceptions for overreach.

Wow! One of the most notorious bigots on the Net? Jesus. There’s nothing like infamy I guess.

They won’t quit calling me this crap, will they? I work on Black political campaigns – I am a member of Culture of Change. My favorite group in Congress is the Black Political Caucus. I voted for Obama twice and even cried at his first election just because I am such a damned liberal. I supported the early Civil Rights Act, and I support all civil rights laws with the exception of affirmative action. I also oppose disparate impact – it’s got to go.

I am outraged that the SC threw out the Voting Rights Act. I am furious that Black voters are being disenfranchised across our land. I am angry that the Housing Rights Act is so little enforced. I am appalled and disgusted at the open racism of the Trump Administration, especially Jeff Sessions, an unreconstructed White racist right out of the Jim Crow era.

Trump’s mild anti-Black actions such as his tweets are slightly disgusting. He wants to get racist Whites all riled up to support him. How sickening. I am repulsed that Donald Trump was convicted of housing discrimination in refusing to rent to Blacks in New York City. This level of racism is repulsive. Martin Luther King is one of my heroes and so is late Malcolm X after he renounced separatism. I even like the Black Panthers. Not the racist New Black Panthers. The old ones like Huey and Stokely and the rest.

With a history like that, they dare to call me an anti-Black racist?! How many anti-Black racist White men do you know who fit my description? There’s no such thing.

Still a lot of Blacks keep calling me racist. I am tempted to call them ingrates and tell them to go to Hell and solve their own problems, as I am not going to help them anymore. But I keep getting pulled back. I am going to try to help US Blacks no matter how much they hate me. Sometimes you just have to do the right thing.

Jason: SHI, based on your comments on FAGS, I would think you’d be out cheering Trump’s masculine pro-white agenda.

Jason sounds like a Cultural Left type here. Newsflash: a lot of White liberal straight men have some pretty un-PC views on race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, etc. Sexist, racist, bigoted, transphobic and homophobic views are notoriously common among White liberal straight men. There’s more to liberalism that this Cultural Left crap you know. This is what it’s boiled down to now: people think that the only reason anyone is liberal is because they are Cultural Left. If you’re traditional or not Cultural Left, how can you possibly be a liberal. And if you hold traditional social views, you must vote Republican. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

I hang out on Left websites like Daily Kos a lot (even though they gave me a lifetime ban recently). Most of the articles on there have nothing whatsoever to do with the Cultural Left. They don’t talk about race, feminism, gay rights or trans rights a lot and when they do, it is more in the sense of basic rights than Cultural Left crap. An article about feminism would take the line of the pay gap or cutting birth control coverage out of the health care bill. An article on gay rights would argue for anti-discrimination in employment and the right to marry. An article on transsexuals would say they ought to be able to serve in the military. An article on race would talk about the ways that Blacks are being openly discriminated against in voting rights nowadays, leading to a new Jim Crow. I actually support all of those positions and I hate the Cultural Left.

We need to get off this liberalism and Left = Cultural Left insanity. It needs to strong leftwing men like me getting constantly abused being called conservative, Republican, rightist, fascist, Nazi, anti-Semite, misogynist, homophobe, transphobe, bigot, reactionary, Alt Right, and all sorts of bullshit. Never mind that no rightwing group wants anything to do with me and I have identified with the Left my whole life. We are throwing a lot of good people out of the Left because they aren’t going along with whatever the Cultural Left carnival ride of the day is. It’s morally reprehensible and it’s also just plain bad politics.

A lot of liberal men are pretty masculine. This whole thing of if you are a masculine man, you have to vote Republican because Democrats are all cucks and faggots is a new thing.

And a lot of liberal straight men don’t like gay men too much. Homophobia is basically normal for straight men. Straight male society has a lot of rules, but one of them is:

1. Absolutely no faggotry whatsoever in any way, shape or form.

You can’t even have thoughts like that. I have known some straight men who told me that they have low level gay interests but they have no interest in acting on them. The attractions are very minor and these are mostly just regular straight men. However, they told me that they had to suppress those feelings when they were around other straight men because they insisted that when they experienced those gay attractions around straight men, even in the privacy of their minds only, straight men often picked up on it and they tended to get very angry in response. You simply cannot have even thoughts like that around other straight men. They will freak and reject you flat out.

Straight men hate effeminate behavior, they hate wussy, pussy, girly, sissy, faggy, wimpy men, and the very idea of gay sex is physically revolting to most of them. A lot of straight men would say the worst thing you could do would be to have sex with another man, and a number of straight men have told me they would rather take a bullet than have sex with a guy.

On the other hand, a lot of these same straight men will support gay rights. They just don’t want any gay men around them. I’ve never known one straight man from my generation who had a gay friend. In my generation, the idea of straight men having gay friends is simply bizarre. How could any straight man have a gay friend? It’s just too weird.

Friendships are based on having a lot of things in common. The one thing binding together most straight male friendships is heterosexuality or love of pussy if you will. Quite a bit of straight male friendships are about socializing around women. You get together and talk about women most of the time. That’s one of the main things you have in common and that’s the glue that makes a close friendship possible. With gay men and straight men, the gap in fundamental basic interests is as wide as the Grand Canyon and I do not see how you bridge that.